>However, I still think that you did not rebut my argument that wealth is a
>more "equal opportunity" way of status attainment than ascribed status
>characteristics.
I think I did.
> In fact, I am quite surprised that you said that not
>everyone has an equal ability to attain wealth - that reads like a page
>straight from social Darwinism that justifies wealth inequality as
>"natural."
Your surprise quite surprises me. Quite obviously some people are bloody hopeless at managing money, as you must know. To say we are all equally endowed with such ability, as you seem to be doing, suggests that you must come from the moral failure school of thought on poverty. After all, if the poor have an equal ability to attain wealth, then their "unnatural" failure to do so can only be explained by a stubborn refusal to make the most of their equal ability.
Even so, your professed surprise that others might have another theory is a bit incredible. To suggest that the only alternative to your moral failure theory is Social Darwinism is trite.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas